I think that all guns should be taken off unless it's for hunting, but they should allow police officers to carry their piece unless they have cause for concern over the officers hurting their patrons.Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!

I have patiently read through most of these posts and find one fact discussion missing or not adequately covered. Let's start by reading exactly what the second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". In my opinion, this is not about hunting, or target practice, or defending your home. It is about the ability of the populace to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. The foreign part is easy to identify, however the domestic is not so. Domestic can be interpreted many ways. I truly believe that the second amendment was meant to keep the people free. And in order to do that the people must not only be able to defend themselves from foreign attack, but also from internal attack. It it the responsibility, and yes I did just say "responsibility" of every American to be to be prepared to defend themselves from outside invasion and internal strife. And yes from their government as well. In my opinion, the right to bear arms was put second in the Bill of Rights because in order to have the rights guaranteed in the first amendment, you must have a way of defending it. Without that, you have no rights guaranteed under the first or third or eighteenth or any amendment. As far as gun control and registration. The ability to disarm a populace is inherent to the ability to control. Enough said on that. I have multiple guns for multiple purposes. My handguns are to protect my family and property. My rifles are for hunting and target practice. My shotguns are for sporting clays and hunting. My AR-15 and other military rifles are to protect my country and my Constitution. If that makes me a gun nut, or a right winger, or a conspiracy theorist, then I guess i am. One other thing. If you want to have an intelligent discussion on guns, then get read up on what is legal and what is illegal. What a semiautomatic and an automatic are. And finally, fully automatic weapons are legal to own if the proper paperwork is in place and the $200 dollar fee is paid.

a friend shared an article that articulates and condenses the best arguments for legalizing all guns. you can read the article defending guns & gun ownership at the following link: (samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun). i will attempt to examine and expose the prejudices and successive bias in the opinions offered by Sam Harris.

so i read through the article and i disagree with most of the positions that Sam Harris defends. i have had so many debates on this in the recent weeks with many good friends examining both sides of the arguments. first off, there is no argumentative or rational merit in upholding biased opinions proffered by the NRA. The NRA, quite literally, is a gun and firearms lobby that receives and borrows majority of its funding and ideology from arms manufacturers!!

the only point where i find myself agreeing with Sam Harris, is on Second Amendment. anyone who uses the Second Amendment argument to defend gun ownership is quite literally lacking some grey matter. anyone claiming that having a well regulated militia to defend against tyrannical powers of the federal govt obviously is under the illusion that a handful of guns will protect their liberties against hellfire missiles from Predator drone strikes or the overwhelming firepower at the discretion of the federal govt. perhaps they could ask David Koresh and the Branch Dravidians!!

also if guns alone aided the resolve of denizens to defend liberties against tyrannical governments, then Arab Spring has been a fruitless uprising and did not happen!! i find it truly humorous. as are the arguments postulated by Sam Harris.

the mere fact that gun owners r the ones committing these crimes speaks volumes and unravels the rational behind the arguments of allowing more guns!! Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were instead used by her son to kill her and then 20 schoolchildren and injure 26 victims.

for every uninformed opinion out there, you might want to look at the data coming out of police precincts, hospitals, healthcare organizations, global studies, and stats. it behooves me that in an age of information, data, & technology people would choose to support & defend positions not substantiated by research and data, whether it's gun control, climate change, living & quality of life standards, equality, gender roles, healthcare, taxes, role of govt. etc. there is simply too much information and data existing out there that irrational positions, even those fomented by an esteemed neuroscientist as such, seem an entitlement and an exercise in endorsing self-validated ignorance.

using his opinions, Sam Harris is purporting to invalidate years of research and data coming out of Harvard Med School, Johns Hopkins, Stanford and other esteemed organizations on gun violence. the best part is that these ideologues try to reduce research, science, logic, statistics, and math by claiming these are "liberal opinions and positions"!!!

maybe all of this has to do with the fractured culture, history, and epidemic of guns in America. instead of books, we give our children toy guns n violent video games for Christmas n New Years, n openly champion violence than rational discourse. then we are aghast when as a society we are left to confront events like the ones that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora, Tucson, Covina, Washington D.C., Columbine and scores of others. we live n embrace a culture that glorifies death, murder, and mayhem, self-absorbed, disaffected, apathy where we think it is a violation of our individual rights to provide healthcare for everyone but make it adequately easy for anyone to step into a gun show or store to buy automatic guns!! maybe it also has to do with the desensitization of watching drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan killing helpless civilians one minute, play call of duty the next, and then arbitrarily open an M-11 into an unsuspecting crowd!!

no one needs a magazine that sprays out 100-500 bullets at the pull of a trigger to hunt game or even shoot down a mass murderer. but then it might have to do more with geography n history, n cojones. i come from a country, India, where Mahatma Gandhi and hundreds of thousands of Indians marched n used non-violent Satyagraha to drive away the British. Americans instead resorted to a bloody rebellion to achieve their independence from the same British!!

given the history of America, i am not clamoring for a total ban on gun ownership, but i want a ban on assault weapons, automatics and semi-automatic weapons and for stringent enforcement and permits n stricter rules on violators. the only people who i really deem worthy to carry concealed weapons should be law enforcement.

many people will read this and claim that "oh it is different in Switzerland and other countries"...i have lived there for some years and know of their laws...they require their denizens to serve, and be trained for several years to hold a permit, and the ammunitions are kept under lock and key at local arms depots. forget gun licenses or comparing ourselves to the Swiss or Scandinavians (who think America is a 3rd world cannibalistic society), most citizens here can't even properly name what is the capitol of the United States!! furthermore, if guns are involved in any crime, treble sentences are levied in Switzerland.

the US has very lax guns laws...you only need to interview successive Mexican Presidents or law enforcement south of the border. they will tell you unequivocally that the Mexican govt. is loosing the war against gangs and mafias because of fully automatic and semi automatic guns coming across the border from the US and the drug trade.

the alcohol, tobacco, firearm/defense lobbies are very powerful in the US. i recall the time when Big Tobacco waged a successful campaign against regulation. luckily conscientious insiders, whistle blowers, n information and research from reputable health organizations exposed the conspiracies of Big Tobacco and led to punitive regulations and settlements.

stating that there are more deaths from swimming pool drownings, car accidents, cigarette smoking, and cardiovascular diseases is definitely not an argument worthy of any merit, especially from a public health perspective. it would be the moral and rational equivalent of stating "yeah, we have asbestos in this building, but despite the health risks and concerns, let's not do anything about it since it is not the leading cause of death"!!! i hope you can see how irrational and disjointed such a position would be.

recently i saw an ad in the newspaper from Academy Sporting Goods store that had an AK-47 for sale for $140!! it gave people the option to have the gun fitted as a semi-automatic or automatic. i find it very troubling and disturbing that in the US an AK-47 costs less than my tennis racket or my golf clubs!!

the US has very lax guns laws...you only need to interview successive Mexican Presidents or law enforcement south of the border. they will tell you unequivocally that the Mexican govt. is loosing the war against gangs and mafias because of fully automatic and semi automatic guns coming across the border from the US and the drug trade.

snip

recently i saw an ad in the newspaper from Academy Sporting Goods store that had an AK-47 for sale for $140!! it gave people the option to have the gun fitted as a semi-automatic or automatic. i find it very troubling and disturbing that in the US an AK-47 costs less than my tennis racket or my golf clubs!!

I actually posted that Sam Harris essay on here a few days ago. I think it's quite interesting to read.

I'm really only posting here for two reasons. Regarding American guns making it into Mexico - there are plenty of reasons why fully-automatic guns aren't coming into Mexico from The United States. Let's suffice it to say that they're much more readily available in South and Central America than they are here, and they're much cheaper down there to boot. It doesn't make sense for a gun runner to risk bringing them in from here, when it's much easier and cheaper to bring them up from down south. N'est-ce pas?

On the issue of semi-automatic rifles... you should look into a government-run operation called (at various times) either "Operation Gun Walker" or "Fast and Furious". Our government actually ordered gun shops to sell some 2,000 (or more) semi-automatic rifles to people they knew were going to take those rifles to Mexico. The idea was to track the guns to their destinations. Unfortunately, the guns were lost as soon as they crossed the border into Mexico. We wouldn't know about these government operations today if not for the fact that two federal agents were killed by drug runners wielding those weapons.

Second... where can I get a fully-automatic AK-47 for $140? I want to know, really. I mean, it's impossible to buy a fully-automatic rifle legally, so it's quite a moot point, and if you want a semi-automatic rifle, they're usually up over $600. So if a major sporting goods chain is offering to sell them that cheap, I just might have to look into buying a few.

fundiversions wrote: "the mere fact that gun owners r the ones committing these crimes speaks volumes and unravels the rational behind the arguments of allowing more guns!! Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were instead used by her son to kill her and then 20 schoolchildren and injure 26 victims."

fundiversions contradicts himself in the above statement. Nancy Lanza owned the guns, yet she did not commit the crimes. So much for "gun owners r the ones commiting these crimes." Her son committed the crimes after stealing the guns. I think we can all agree that taking property not belonging to yourself is stealing. This is a prime example to show that the bad guys will always have a means to get guns. Gun control will not make guns disappear. Only the law abiding citizens will become defenseless and those bent upon killing will continue to do so.

Let's not forget that without guns, America would not have successfully split from Britian. My point being that the framers of the Constitution were knee deep in the issues of separating from Britian and they knew exactly what it would take to become an independent nation. More importantly, they knew what it would take to maintain being an independent nation "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Like any other tool, guns aren't "good" or "bad". They're inanimate objects, they have no feelings. No emotions. No human characteristics. They are tools to be used however the person holding it feels.

This guy wasn't there to rob or steal. He was there to rape and murder. The woman took her kids and ran and hid away. He searched for them and found them. If he just wanted to steal her shit, he would have. But he sought them out, passing by her stuff. She didn't engage him, didn't go off half-cocked. Didn't seek to have to injure or kill him. She was level headed, calm, and clear thinking. Hiding to avoid any confrontation. But when the intruder found her and her kids, she took action and shot. I just don't understand the thought of taking the only thing that saved her life OUT of her hands. The intruder didn't have a gun, but would have killed them just as dead without one. It's the mind of a killer that matters. And the mind of a defender of her and her family's life that matter.

Womam hiding in attic shoots intruder (edit... according to GMA, the man used a crowbar to break into the house. Chased a 9yr old, broke through a locked bedroom door and a locked bathroom door before getting to the attic access. Then breaking into it. What else could the woman have done? She was right to shoot and protect her family)

Can anyone realistically tell this woman she shouldn't be allowed to own a gun? What right do we have to tell her, you should have just hidden away but when he found you, just accept murder, torture, rape, whatever of herself and her kids? As long as guys like this exist, there will be a need for people to have a gun.

Great thing about the USA, and forums like this, everyone can express their opnion. So Ill add mine. Think about this, nearly every crime, every terrorist act, heck even most military operations look for this aspect in planning, a soft target. The one that will have the highest pay off with the least threat of failure. If Lanza knew the teachers carried weapons, or there was a sizeable security staff that was armed, he could not have done the damage he did. The bushmaster rifle that was found, the series was designed as a hunting and sport version of the M16 class of weapons. Why you may ask, many Hunters are current or former military, police, etc. We know the weapon and are comfortable with it. The majority of the weapons calls I have been involved with, a large majority...the weapons were gained illegally. Old addage, make guns a crime, only criminals will have guns.

Great thing about the USA, and forums like this, everyone can express their opnion. So Ill add mine. Think about this, nearly every crime, every terrorist act, heck even most military operations look for this aspect in planning, a soft target. The one that will have the highest pay off with the least threat of failure. If Lanza knew the teachers carried weapons, or there was a sizeable security staff that was armed, he could not have done the damage he did. The bushmaster rifle that was found, the series was designed as a hunting and sport version of the M16 class of weapons. Why you may ask, many Hunters are current or former military, police, etc. We know the weapon and are comfortable with it. The majority of the weapons calls I have been involved with, a large majority...the weapons were gained illegally. Old addage, make guns a crime, only criminals will have guns.

A large number of _gun_ deaths (many suicides, arguments and domestic disputes that got overheated) are not planned. Many are spontaneous outbursts turned deadly only because of access to this kind of lethal weapon.

If Lanza hadn't had access to the weapons he did, he couldn't have gone on any rampage, 'soft target' or no.

And while not the majority, 40% of gun crimes the guns were obtained legally. That's thousands of deaths per year. Wouldn't it be nice to cut that down by a substantial margin by things like universal background check? Let's not forget, as has been state numerous times here, NO ONE in the US legislature is proposing "making guns a crime". So you're arguing against a complete straw man.

I have been trying my best not to jump in and add my thoughts to this hot button topic, but I fear I can no longer do so. I have read many of the comments made on all the forums on this topic. In reading these comments, on both side of the issue, I feel many of you are failing to grasp the brass ring.

I wish not to belittle anyone here, but facts are facts so let me point out a few of them.

First. The United States of America stands along in the world, for one reason. We are, the only Constitutional Republic, in the world. We are not (As many believe) a Democracy or a Constitutional Democracy.

For those who wish to disagree with me on that statement, I will ask you to do 2 things. 1: Say the Pledge of a Legions. 2: Study the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitutions of all 50 states.

Nowhere in any of these documents, dose the word Democracy appear. Why? Because, we are not a Democracy. A Democracy is nothing more then a Mob Rule type of Government. And this is why our founders chose to form our country as a Constitutional Republic. So the People and the Government would be subject to the Rule of Law.

But our Founder understood, that the powers to be, within the Government, could and would change the constitution to benefit them, if there was not a CHECK to their control over the constitution and the people. This is why, they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Many people only use part of the 2nd Amendment. “The right to bear arms.” But I ask to read the whole amendment below.

Article II Right to keep and bear armsA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Three points here. The people have the right to form a militia. The Government has the right to regulate the militia and the people have right to bear arms in that militia.

This simple little article allows the PEOPLE to be free from their own Government and allows them to band together in one voice, when all other options fail under the law.

Now with respect to the Governments right to regulate in the 2nd amendment, they can pass laws banning some weapons and some weapons should be regulated. But however the ban they are talking about would be useless and will not save one single life.

To prove that statement here is a FACT! From 1994 to 2004 we had the assault weapons ban in place along with a ban on any magazines holding over 10 rounds.

In 1999, in a place called Columbine 2 mentally disturbed, young boys killed 13 people and injured 21 people. That is an ugly fact. And I am truly sad about that and my heart goes out to all those families.

But back to the point, that LAW didn’t save those poor young people. The fact is, no Law can regulate anyone’s behavior. We have laws on drunk driving, but yet people are still taken to soon and people still drive drunk.

Let’s face it. People have been killing each other since we have walked up right. Kane killed Able and did not use a firearm to do it. So until people learn to respect life, which will never happen in our lifetime, death will happen by any means.

What is the answer to this hot button topic? There is none. You can ban very weapon on earth, and people will still find ways to kill one another. I know. I have seen it many times, all over the world. But to take the people's right or attempt to take that right, is not the right answer. For it will only lead to more death and allow those in power to rule over the people without any fear.

The Right of the people to bear arms is simply a tool to keep the government in CHECK. And from the bottom of my heart, I hope we as a people, never have to use that tool.

I have been trying my best not to jump in and add my thoughts to this hot button topic, but I fear I can no longer do so. I have read many of the comments made on all the forums on this topic. In reading these comments, on both side of the issue, I feel many of you are failing to grasp the brass ring.

I wish not to belittle anyone here, but facts are facts so let me point out a few of them.

First. The United States of America stands along in the world, for one reason. We are, the only Constitutional Republic, in the world. We are not (As many believe) a Democracy or a Constitutional Democracy.

For those who wish to disagree with me on that statement, I will ask you to do 2 things. 1: Say the Pledge of a Legions. 2: Study the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitutions of all 50 states.

Nowhere in any of these documents, dose the word Democracy appear. Why? Because, we are not a Democracy. A Democracy is nothing more then a Mob Rule type of Government. And this is why our founders chose to form our country as a Constitutional Republic. So the People and the Government would be subject to the Rule of Law.

But our Founder understood, that the powers to be, within the Government, could and would change the constitution to benefit them, if there was not a CHECK to their control over the constitution and the people. This is why, they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Many people only use part of the 2nd Amendment. “The right to bear arms.” But I ask to read the whole amendment below.

Article II Right to keep and bear armsA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Three points here. The people have the right to form a militia. The Government has the right to regulate the militia and the people have right to bear arms in that militia.

This simple little article allows the PEOPLE to be free from their own Government and allows them to band together in one voice, when all other options fail under the law.

Now with respect to the Governments right to regulate in the 2nd amendment, they can pass laws banning some weapons and some weapons should be regulated. But however the ban they are talking about would be useless and will not save one single life.

To prove that statement here is a FACT! From 1994 to 2004 we had the assault weapons ban in place along with a ban on any magazines holding over 10 rounds.

In 1999, in a place called Columbine 2 mentally disturbed, young boys killed 13 people and injured 21 people. That is an ugly fact. And I am truly sad about that and my heart goes out to all those families.

But back to the point, that LAW didn’t save those poor young people. The fact is, no Law can regulate anyone’s behavior. We have laws on drunk driving, but yet people are still taken to soon and people still drive drunk.

Let’s face it. People have been killing each other since we have walked up right. Kane killed Able and did not use a firearm to do it. So until people learn to respect life, which will never happen in our lifetime, death will happen by any means.

What is the answer to this hot button topic? There is none. You can ban very weapon on earth, and people will still find ways to kill one another. I know. I have seen it many times, all over the world. But to take the people's right or attempt to take that right, is not the right answer. For it will only lead to more death and allow those in power to rule over the people without any fear.

[The Right of the people to bear arms is simply a tool to keep the government in CHECK. And from the bottom of my heart, I hope we as a people, never have to use that tool.]

Seems to me that IF we had a press they would be looking thru Federal Fire Arms Registrations and tell us in detail what guns the Pres and Sheriff Joe own.

Or The Pres and VP could just give the US Citizens the details on those weapons they own , like they want all of us to do, you know lead, on this issue, disclose fully, the make , model and when the gun was purchased and from whom by name, was it a private sale and on what date and year did they purchase their personal arsenal?

Seems to me that IF we had a press they would be looking thru Federal Fire Arms Registrations and tell us in detail what guns the Pres and Sheriff Joe own.

Or The Pres and VP could just give the US Citizens the details on those weapons they own , like they want all of us to do, you know lead, on this issue, disclose fully, the make , model and when the gun was purchased and from whom by name, was it a private sale and on what date and year did they purchase their personal arsenal?

Why do they feel the need to be so heavily armed?

Show me the cite that says Obama owns a gun. Biden, too. Whether they own any or not, they don't carry one. They've got the Secret Service for that. Your question is otherwise entirely full of shit. If either or both of them own a gun they've registered it properly according to the laws of the state it was purchased and the records are accessible as per the laws for access to that kind of information.

Obama advice if you find yourself involved in an active shooter situation.

Grab Scissors and defend yourself, now you know why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When you have such mental midgets involved like ObamaBots, you can not leave your personal safely to them, ever.

I recently heard that the president can outlaw guns under a provision of the patriot act. Does anyone know the details of this?

Yes, it is bullshit.

The US Constitution does not Sed Power to the President. His role is strictly control as the Founding Father designed it to be. The Founding Father wrote the US Constitution to protect WE THE PEOPLE from the Government.

The US Constitution does not Sed Power to the President. His role is strictly control as the Founding Father designed it to be. The Founding Father wrote the US Constitution to protect WE THE PEOPLE from the Government.

fathers. plural. :) and no, they wrote it to protect the colonies from England. and btw, i am one of WE THE PEOPLE. i'd like a little protection too. From YOU THE GUN NUTS.

Obama advice if you find yourself involved in an active shooter situation.

Grab Scissors and defend yourself, now you know why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When you have such mental midgets involved like ObamaBots, you can not leave your personal safely to them, ever.

and i am curious, who or what exactly are The Obamabots? Cause if the name isn't actually taken, i want it for my techno band :)

Obama advice if you find yourself involved in an active shooter situation.

Grab Scissors and defend yourself, now you know why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When you have such mental midgets involved like ObamaBots, you can not leave your personal safely to them, ever.

That's a lot of hollow point lead for domestic use. There are other mass ammunition purchases being made by government departments & agencies which - you'd look at and wonder... Why the fuck do they need to buy ammunition?

Google is our friend. Just say'nMost intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski

That's a lot of hollow point lead for domestic use. There are other mass ammunition purchases being made by government departments & agencies which - you'd look at and wonder... Why the fuck do they need to buy ammunition?

Google is our friend. Just say'n

I've asked the same thing of friends who I know personally and have 10's of thousands of rounds. I'm told a good day at the range can expend several thousand all by itself - by the people who shoot, not by 'worry warts'.

Given that law enforcement plus military firearms number around 4 million, and civilian firearms number over 300 million, I don't really see how the bullet numbers matter much. If law enforcement is ordering a few hundred million bullets, then civilian bullets must be in the tens of billions.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.